2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Hillary Clinton Will Never be President of the United States [View all]BainsBane
(53,175 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 20, 2016, 04:38 AM - Edit history (2)
with the odds makers. If you're right, you'll make a killing.
I myself do not take directions from the GOP attack machine. You declare their results absolue, despite the fact Clinton is the most admired woman IN THE WORLD and the most admired Democrat in the race.
I see nothing that qualifies Sanders to be president. He is skilled at sloganeering and that is attractive to some, but he has no track record of success. Twenty five years in congress, he has ONE major legislative accomplishment. (Not to diminish the importance of naming post offices, but a revolution it ain't.) I don't want a president who has no productive relations with congress and what may well be the least successful legislative record in all of congress. I want someone who is competent, who knows Sunni from Shia and Jordan from Turkey. Now, I know full well some care much more about words than action. They want the president to validate their anger and provide entertainment for them on cable news by telling them what they want to hear. I consider that completely unnecessary.
Bernie is not the best chance in the general election for many reasons, the first of which is that he is unlikely to win the primary. His policies don't hold water. He himself isn't even serious enough about them to try to put together proposals that make sense. The one economist--from UMass Amherst-- who vouched for his economic plan has been widely criticized because his conclusions depend on scenarios for growth that have never before happened in history. Then, quite strangely, it turns out the guy says he's voting for Clinton and not Sanders.
Whenever any of that is pointed out, his supporters declare it as "establishment FUD," (a response I just got for discussing his actual voting record). We have a candidate who is defended by attacking progressive economists and policy analysts, researchers, and research itself. They refuse to consider any independent analysis of his proposals and don't even care if the math is internally consistent in the documents Sanders himself produces.
Paul Krugman noted that we are witnessing an abandonment of reason, informed knowledge, and academic research in favor of what people want to believe. That has long been the province of the right. Democrats have been distinguished by concern about evidence. Support for Sanders has come to be predicated on abandoning reason and instead relying on what people want to believe. That itself is reason enough to oppose his candidacy because a world in which science, logic, and research are eskewed is a dangerous one. It's bad enough that has become the lifeblood of the GOP. I will not sit back and watch the Democratic party become gripped by the same thing.
Your point about dropping poll numbers shows a stark lack of knowledge about politics. Clinton was the only known candidate months ago. Of course her numbers were high, and they have dropped as the election has proceeded. One, she has a popular opponent. She is also met with attacks from "progressives" that mirror the opposition research generated by the GOP at the cost of tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars. Bernie has gone essentially unscathed because the GOP badly wants him as their opponent and have spend millions running ads to make that happen. That itself refutes your claim that Bernie is the most winnable candidate. Clearly the GOP sees it differently, and I happen to think they probably know a lot more about it than those who operate based on wishful thinking.
Bernie has even gone unscathed in the primary. We had a univision/Hispanic debate last night where no one even mentioned his votes on the Minutemen. It's quite astounding how little coverage his voting record has gotten. Clinton has been extremely reticent. I suppose she knows that sexism means that any attacks she makes on Bernie are likely to blow back on her because of the way that so many view forceful women negatively--something we have seen constantly throughout this campaign. And then the press just doesn't do its job. The GOP has spent countless millions digging up dirt on Clinton, and none on Sanders. He hasn't been vetted and his supporters are determined he not be. They think they are doing him favors, but ultimately such a posture only helps the GOP.
Your point about the supposed irrelevance of voters of color is not only uninformed, it is offensive. The Democratic Party is majority women and people of color. Their votes count, even if they don't live in the states you think matter. Your determination that those aren't blue states and therefore their votes less important is absurd. Your point hinges on the idea that blue states will only stay blue if Bernie is the nominee, when there is no reason to assume that is the case. Bernie has won ONE state, and that state is not blue. People of color also live in blue states, and NO DEMOCRAT can win without them.
There is a basic principle that seems to elude you. Your vote is not worth more than anyone else's. Your vote is not worth more than the black folks in South Carolina, and you are not more important than they are. You don't seem to have any clue about the make up of the party you insist vote as you demand or the country you live in.
No one here is going to change their vote because you think Sanders is more winnable, particularly when the claim is little more than wishful thinking. All the GOP needs to do is run some of his statements about being a socialist and related background and he's finished. This is still America after all.
People support Clinton because she is competent, because she is thoughtful in her policy positions, and because she LISTENS to voters. I see none of those qualities in Sanders. He has created a brand that is compelling to some, but that brand doesn't hold up to scrutiny. While he and his supporters clearly believe themselves superior to the rest of Americans, even the inferior folk get to vote. In fact, the Democratic Party's primary voting constituencies are those inferior folk you seem to think are obligated to vote as you demand. The attitude displayed by Sanders supporters, the condescension toward votes of color and women, and the attacks on anyone who fails to endorse or criticizes Bernie, is one of the worst things about his campaign and ought to cause pause among those who want do not want a society where conformity of thought and absolute deference for authority are enforced through personal attacks. The vision of a potential future America foreshadowed by such behavior is bone chilling, and one that I hope never comes to fruition.
People are going to vote as they see fit. If Clinton comes out with the most votes, which currently polling indicates, she will be the nominee. In typical fashion, you of course believe your own view superior to the polls, the odds makers, Nate Silver, and everyone else. That is of course the nature of entitlement. Data is irrelevant. You and those who think exactly like you are what matter. Some day perhaps you will realize that ou are not the absolute source of all knowledge, and you do not have powers to predict the future. I have no doubt you want more than anything to ensure Clinton will not be elected president and that you will do everything in your power to make that happen. And I have no doubt that you will be aided by many in that mission. But if she emerges through this nomination process with the most votes, the most delegates, you will simply have to take up your crusade on behalf of the GOP.
Edit history
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)